[NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship

[Woodward, Jim]

Ryan M.,

 

I think this takes the cake as a first time nsrca-list email.  Thank you
for the support.

Jim W.

 


 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and proprietary information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
 
________________________________


From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
McLaughlin, Ryan (FRS.JAX)
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:19 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship

 

This is my first post to the NSRCA list as I am a bit 'internet shy',
but I thought I might be able to add some value to the FAI judging
discussion Jim W started.  Although I tend to err on the side of
diplomacy : ), I believe the feelings Jim expressed are legitimate and
shared by many FAI competitors throughout the country.  As a long time
participant, I realize that bias is not a new problem but I do not think
we should accept this is as a "fact of life" and move on.  I think we
have an excellent opportunity here and we should make the most of it.

The primary issue to address in my opinion is not disparity in judging
standards between judges, though as Earl points out, this is important.
Rather, it is the different standard applied to pilots within one score
set--i.e.. scoring a pilot lower or higher based on who he is.  Our
penchant for creating "superstars" is the most discouraging aspect of
FAI competition.  To remedy this, we must all make a conscious decision
to change a long established tradition in our sport.  Are we ready to
take this on?

Complaining isn't the answer and neither is staying quiet, a mistake
that has made the FAI competitors as responsible as anyone else for the
situation.  To this end, I submit for your review the following ideas to
specifically target the FAI bias issue:

 

1. Sacrifice one FAI round per contest to serve as an "open" round for
all contestants expected to judge FAI during the event.  Allow everyone
to compare notes and use this as a coaching opportunity.

2.  Drop one FAI pilot to Masters at each contest to serve as a judge
for all rounds and use volunteers from other classes to serve as the
others.  This would have to be an agreement made among FAI pilots.

3.  Extend the pilots meeting to go over specific issues, maybe a new
one or two every meet rather than just pointing out the landing zone,
etc.  Make a "mini" judging seminar mandatory each contest.

4.  Certify judges for FAI on a volunteer basis and only use "certified"
judges in the contest. 

5.  Utilize peer judging, in other words, have FAI pilots judge
themselves.  If a pilot is not flying, he is judging his fellow
competitors.

 

Some of this may seem radical, but I believe there is room for a bit of
this.  Pattern belongs to us right?  I welcome any ideas or critique
anyone can offer.  I will clarify any of the above upon request.

Thank you for your consideration. 

 

Ryan McLaughlin 
Eustis, Florida 

 

________________________________

This message w/attachments (message) may be privileged, confidential or
proprietary, and if you are not an intended recipient, please notify the
sender, do not use or share it and delete it. Unless specifically
indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any
investment products or other financial product or service, an official
confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Merrill
Lynch. Subject to applicable law, Merrill Lynch may monitor, review and
retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems. The
laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of
EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other
than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free. This message is subject to terms
available at the following link:
http://www.ml.com/e-communications_terms/. By messaging with Merrill
Lynch you consent to the foregoing.

________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20071017/456d4418/attachment.html